Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY
O R D E R PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, J. M.: 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the Order dated 08-05-2018, impugned herein by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax,Dehradun (in short „Ld. Commissioner‟) u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act-1961 (in short „the Act), whereby the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the Assessee in limine.
In this case, the assessment order dated 28.03.2016 was passed by the AO u/s 147 read with section 144 of the Act, against which the Assessee instead of filing the appeal electronically, filed the same in physical form on dated 17.11.2008 and therefore, vide impugned order the same was dismissed by the ld. Commissioner in „limine‟by treating as invalid and non-est. Against the dismissal of appeal, the Assessee has preferred the instant appeal.
The Assessee has submitted that because of the technical glitches in the online portal of the Income Tax Department, the Assessee could not file the appeal in electronic form and was constrained to file in physical form. Infact not filing the appeal electronically was neither intentional nor malafide.
On the contrary the ld. DR refuted the claim of the assessee.
Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. We observe that the identical issue came up before the Hon‟ble Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, in the case of M/s. SL Laboratories Pvt. Ltd Vs. Dy. CIT {ITA No. 5805/Del/2016 for the Assessment Year 2012-13 decided on 24.03.2021} wherein, the Hon‟ble Bench has taken the lenient view by considering the peculiar facts and circumstances qua technical glitches in the e-filing website of the Income Tax department and allowed the appeal of the Assessee and consequently directed the Ld. Commissioner to admit the Assessee‟s appeal filed in the manual form for regular hearing and thereafter to pass the order on merit, in accordance with law after giving due opportunity to the assessee to present its case. For ready reference the concluding part of order passed by the Hon‟ble Bench is reproduced herein below for brevity and ready reference:-
“3.0 Having heard both the parties, it is our consideredopinion that, although, the assessee was required to file the appealin electronic form w.e.f., 01.03.2016, it is undisputed that at thatparticular time there were some technical glitches in the e-filingwebsite of the Income Tax Department due to which the CBDTsubsequently extended the time limit for filing of e-appeals to15.06.2016. Thus, although the assessee had tried earlier to file theappeal in electronic form, it could not do so due to the technicalissues involved. In such a situation, the assessee should not be putto a disadvantage and, therefore, for the reason of substantialjustice, we direct the Ld. CIT(A) to admit the assessee’s appeal filed in the manual form for regular hearing and, thereafter, pass anorder in accordance with law after giving due opportunity to theassessee to present its case.”
We have given thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of this case and find that identical issue was involved in M/s. SL Laboratories Pvt. Ltd Vs. Dy. CIT. Even otherwise we do not find any material and reason to disbelieve the contention of the Assessee qua technical glitches in web site of the Revenue Department at the time of filling of appeal by the Assessee in physical form. Even Prima facie non- filling of the appeal electronically does not seems to be malafide or intentional and no useful purpose has been served by not filling the appeal electronically. Even no prejudice shall be caused to the Revenue Department if the appeal of the Assessee is allowed to be decided on merit, hence considering the peculiar facts and circumstances mentioned above and in view of the decision of the Hon‟ble Coordinate Bench, we deem it appropriate to direct the Ld. Commissioner to treat the appeal filed by the assessee in physical form as filed electronically and to decide the same on merit, suffice to say while affording reasonable opportunity of heard to the Assessee. Hence, ordered accordingly.
In the result the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.